High-level language computer architecture: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:33, 24 January 2016

Revision as of 07:51, 1 April 2016

Line 51:

A further advantage is that a language implementation can be updated by updating the microcode ([[firmware]]), without requiring recompilation of an entire system. This is analogous to updating an interpreter for an interpreted language.

An advantage that's reappearing post-2000 is safety or security. Mainstream IT has largely moved to languages with type and/or memory safety for most applications. The software those depend on, from OS to virtual machines, leverage native code with no protection. Many vulnerabilities have been found in such code. One solution is to use a processor custom built to execute a safe high level language or at least understand types. Protections at the processor word level make attackers' job phenomenally difficult compared to low level machines that see no distinction between scalar data, arrays, pointers, or code. Academics are also developing languages with similar properties that might integrate with high level processors in the future. An example of both of these trends is the SAFE<ref>http://www.crash-safe.org</ref> project. Compare [[language-based system]]s, where the software (especially operating system) is based around a safe, high-level language, though the hardware need not be: the "trusted base" may still be in a lower level language.

==Disadvantages==